1500-day court martial ‘murder’ jailbird freed

________________

The High Court has granted temporary relief to a man accused of murder, who had spent over 1,500 days in jail on the orders of the General Court Martial (GCM).

In a ruling dated April 17, 2025, Justice Isaac Muwata freed Enock Tumwesigye, a civilian, on a cash bail of sh2m.  

He ruled that the applicant’s over 1500-day (approximately four-year) detention without trial was unconstitutional.

“The applicant has been in detention for over 1,500 days without trial, a period that grossly exceeds the constitutional threshold of 180 days. The law is unequivocal: after 180 days of remand without committal for trial, bail becomes mandatory unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the state,” he stated.

The judge granted Tumwesigye mandatory bail and directed him to report to the Deputy Registrar of the Criminal Division of the High Court, every first Monday of the month, commencing May 5, 2025, until the determination of his case or further orders by the court.

Muwata warned against delays in prosecuting cases involving fundamental rights.

Tumwesigye had been detained for 1500 days without trial after being charged with murder before the General Court Martial, a tribunal lacking jurisdiction over civilians.

This prompted the accused person to apply for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, arguing that his prolonged detention without committal violated his constitutional rights and amounted to an abuse of court process.

The judge explained that Article 23(6) (c) of the Constitution provides that a person charged with an offence triable by the High Court shall be released on bail after 180 days of remand without committal.

Muwata noted that the state raised arguments against the grant of bail, namely the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the applicant absconding, and the potential for interference with witnesses but he ruled that the arguments were not supported by any evidence or proof.

“I find that the state has failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances that would justify the continued detention of the applicant,” the judge ruled.